Secure your place with Christ in Heaven...

People have debated the matter of eternal security (once saved, always saved, or OSAS) and conditional salvation for centuries. Well meaning folks have written volumes supporting their particular side of this never ending debate. Each side of this debate has its favorite Bible verses which they believe support their point of view.

I have learned to rise above the foolishness of this argument.

I now realize that both sides of the OSAS debate are missing the major point, which is that God saves us only once. Both sides of this contest have a litany of scripture that appears to support their point of view. But since the Bible is inerrant, we cannot say these verses contradict. There is always a deeper truth that reconciles apparent contradictions in God's word.

We might consider ourselves saved at some point in our life, and in truth we may really not be. 1 John 2:19 says "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us. Such people were never saved, they were just pretending to be. These were "playing church," so to speak.

In short, if you show me a man who goes to Hell on judgment day, I will show you a man who was never saved. And God always knew this man wasn't saved, and God knew when this man would die. So there is really no way to lose what we have never had. A reprobate might fool himself and others into believing he has salvation, but only God truly knows. So the entire OSAS argument evaporates with this understanding.

I think the question then becomes, can a person who appears to be saved actually not be truly saved? And of course the answer is "yes."

But the matter of eternal security vs. conditional salvation is used by Satan to divide and conquer the church.

For the OSAS proponents, they are often teaching some folks who have made weak, counterfeit professions of faith that they cannot lose, no matter what they do. This causes them to venture fearlessly and foolishly deeper into sin. Satan wins.

The conditional salvationist will teach the brethren that they could fall and lose their salvation at any moment, so they have to really work hard (emphasis on work) to maintain that salvation. I have a friend who has been so conflicted over this matter that he has become clinically depressed. He really thinks God rejects him and accepts him, and rejects him and accepts him, all the day long... I can't get through to him, he's often a real mess. Again, Satan--the cleverest of adversaries--wins.

So the two cases above are real world examples of how Satan can use both sides of the OSAS argument to beat down the church. I don't believe either side of this contest is pleasing God. There is a greater truth that transcends this argument--namely, God knows our future and He alone knows who is saved and who isn't. The one who is not saved in the end cannot be said to have ever been saved. Is this not as plain as the nose on your face??

I am firmly convinced that I have seen through Satan's scheme with the OSAS debating. Both sides are entertaining the devil, in my opinion.

Now... :) Here is what you can do if you are concerned about losing your salvation, and falling into hell as a result of departing from God at some point in your future:

Step 1. Realize that it is not God's will than any should perish, He wants us all to come to salvation. See 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9

Step 2. Realize that Christ has told us that whatever we ask of the Father in His name, we will receive it. By being "in His name," Christ means that we are asking only that God's will be done in our lives. See John 15:16

Step 3. Compare steps 1 and 2 and realize that if we prayerfully ask our Lord to come and find us, should we become lost like the sheep mentioned in Matthew 18:12, He will do this. We have asked only what we already know God's will to be.

Step 4. When you are in fellowship with Christ, pray the following prayer: "Lord Jesus, I know that it is Your will that I not be lost. I pray, Lord Jesus, that if I ever wander astray that you will come and find me and restore me to Yourself before I die in sin. Lord You know the day and the moment when I will die. And so I pray that if I fall into sin that you would seek after me and restore me and chasten me to repentance, just as you did with King David when you sent Nathan to him. I pray, Lord Jesus, and believe, that you would do as much for me.

(See 2 Samuel chapters 11 and 12 regarding David's sin and repentance).

Step 5. Realize that God will answer that prayer in the affirmative, because you have asked only for what you already know His will to be.

And do you know what? Even if you don't pray that prayer, Christ has already prayed it for you! Look at John chapter 17, where Jesus is praying to the Father, and He says:

20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

And so we see that we are safe in His mighty hand. Since we have believed, we can know that should we stumble, Christ will seek after us and bring us back into the fold. The only qualification is genuine, true belief. Some have asked the question: "What happens if you stop believing?" But a true believer will not stop believing. Being born again is not some state of mind that one adapts and tries to maintain. It is a literal change. A true born again believer can no more stop believing than a human being can become "unborn" of his mother.

So rest assured that if you do start to drift away from Christ and become temporarily lost, HE WILL come to find you. And when He does find you, you will repent and be restored. How do we know this? Because you are one of His sheep, and He is the Great Shepherd. :)




Dan Newberry

To drink or not to drink...

Brothers and sisters in Christ, whatever your current position on the matter of drinking wine may be, I pray that you will hear me out and read the full body of this article, and please let me know your thoughts, if you wish.

I'm a member of a Southern Baptist church in Southwestern Virginia. I enjoy listening to ministers such as Charles Stanley and Adrian Rogers and J. Vernon McGee... and thank God for the dedication of these men and others like them that teach the brethren. Even after they have gone on to be with our Lord, Rogers and McGee can still be heard on the Christian radio shows, and their messages are as profound as ever. I also enjoy Church of God minister Perry Stone, very much. He's a wonderful man of God and I look forward to his teachings each week on the Trinity Broadcasting Network. Jack Van Impe is another great Bible teacher whom I enjoy very much.

But all of these ministers would likely have a problem with me, I am sad to admit. You see, I drink alcohol. I am not an alcoholic, and never plan on being one--but I do drink wine, and even on rare occasions, beer.

Most ministers who have read and understood their Bibles will admit that drinking alcohol, in and of itself is not sinful. The sin comes when one becomes drunk on alcohol. But ministers in Southern Baptist circles as well as Pentecostal Holiness and Church of God churches will harshly condemn drinking any alcohol at all. They base this on the fact that we may cause a brother to stumble by our bad example.

And this is actually true. We can cause a brother to stumble by setting a bad example before him. If I were to have fellowship with a brother in Christ whom I knew had had trouble with alcohol in the past, I would not drink in his presence. In the same way, I would not eat pie in the presence of a diabetic who I knew was prone to giving in to temptation. I would not eat steak in front of a vegetarian who believed, in his heart of hearts, that eating meat was a sin against God.

In the same way, since my father died of cancer in 1990, I have been a bit (often, more than a bit, I should admit) affected by anxiety and fear when discussions involving cancer come up. Most of my brothers in Christ know this, so they try to avoid such subject matter when fellowshipping with me. This health anxiety is a matter of weakness in me, and I hate it. Sometimes folks who don't know me will bring up discussions about cancer and I'll have to do my best to take my Lord's hand and try to be calm. But when I fail, I find myself feeling fearful and anxious. And since worrying is sin (in effect, worrying is doubting God)... I have been caused to stumble by someone who did not even realize what they were doing to me. I am the one with the weakness, however, and I should not blame someone who unknowingly triggers my fears with innocent conversation. So my point is that we can cause others to stumble sometimes without ever realizing what we've done.

For a recovered alcoholic, he may wish there was no alcohol in the world, and that people would never drink in front of him. In the same way, I wish there were never any conversations about cancer--I wish folks would never talk about it. These conversations sometimes cause me to stumble.

So in order to do our best not to cause a brother to stumble, we must have at least some basic knowledge of who we are fellowshipping with. But this does not give us much to go on when we are out in public, say, at a restaurant, among strangers. Do I drink alcoholic drinks in restaurants? Sometimes, yes, I do.

One might ask: "Well, what about the guy at the table across from me? What will he think when the waitress sets a glass of wine before me?" If you are to argue that I should not drink wine in public because I may set a bad example to someone who happens to be watching what I am doing, do you say the same of eating meat? God says that He has made all meat clean, as He told Peter in the vision in Acts chapter 10. However, some folks still believe it is wrong to eat either all meats, or at least certain meats. If I am enjoying a nice pork roast sandwich in a restaurant across from a newly converted Messianic Jew, I may cause him to stumble. Should I not eat that pork sandwich? Or my bacon with my eggs because I never know when my eating may offend someone?

I think the obvious answer to all of the rhetorical questions cited above is "no." I should enjoy my pork sandwich and my sausage and my bacon. If someone else comes into the restaurant and looks upon my platter and judges me, it is he who has sinned, not me. I have not knowingly and intentionally caused him to stumble.

And so it is with drinking wine. If you walk into my favorite restaurant and find me imbibing an alcoholic beverage and I am not drunk from its consumption, and you whisper to your companions words to convey your disgust with my behavior, you are the sinner in this circumstance.

"But the Bible tells us all sorts of bad things about wine," some will say. "A man does well to avoid any amount at all." And I would agree, if you have been called of the Holy Spirit to abstain from alcohol, you should not drink it. Perhaps God knows that you might negatively influence a key person in your circle of family and friends. Perhaps you are a recovering alcoholic, or alcohol has given you trouble in times past. It is understandable that God would have you avoid such temptation, and God bless you for listening to His command for you.

But to make the jump from what is right and wrong for you, to conclude that such is also right and wrong for another--when there is no scripture to support your particular conviction--is not rightly dividing the word of truth.

"Well, how do you know when you're drunk? How can you be sure you are not sinning and not even realizing it?" comes the question.

And we always find answers in the Bible when we seek them. Proverbs 23 shows us what a drunk man behaves like:

29 Who has woe? Who has sorrow?
Who has strife? Who has complaints?
Who has needless bruises? Who has bloodshot eyes?

30 Those who linger over wine,
who go to sample bowls of mixed wine.

31 Do not gaze at wine when it is red,
when it sparkles in the cup,
when it goes down smoothly!

32 In the end it bites like a snake
and poisons like a viper.

33 Your eyes will see strange sights
and your mind imagine confusing things.

34 You will be like one sleeping on the high seas,
lying on top of the rigging.

35 "They hit me," you will say, "but I'm not hurt!
They beat me, but I don't feel it!
When will I wake up
so I can find another drink?"

So this guy is obviously drunk it's fair to say, and appears to be an alcoholic, based on the last line of this passage. But let's look at another of the Proverbs, this one being chapter 31:

4 "It is not for kings, O Lemuel—
not for kings to drink wine,
not for rulers to crave beer,

5 lest they drink and forget what the law decrees,
and deprive all the oppressed of their rights.

6 Give beer to those who are perishing,
wine to those who are in anguish;

7 let them drink and forget their poverty
and remember their misery no more.

Here we see King Lemuel's mother telling Lemuel that since he is a king he should not drink wine, lest he forget what the law decrees. The implication is that King Lemuel might, from the effects of wine, forget what it is he should be keeping his mind on. Does this forgetfulness equate to drunkenness? No, it cannot mean drunkenness. We see in verses 6 and 7 an outright condoning of drinking wine and strong drink for the express purpose of forgetting! Since we know that God's word is inerrant, we cannot conclude that there is a contradiction between Proverbs 31:6-7 and Paul's words to the Ephesians (and of course, to the church proper) in chapter 5 of that epistle: 18Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.

So, we see that there is a condition somewhere between being drunk, and being what is often called "tipsy." The obvious understanding of the word here is that one can actually imbibe enough wine to become forgetful, but still not be sinning. To read this any other way is to take reckless liberties with scripture, in my opinion.

So how do we reconcile this matter of drinking and abstaining, and what is sin and what is not sin?

The apostle Paul deals with this very matter in Romans chapter 14, one of the most important chapters in all of scripture, I would venture to say. Paul tells us in Romans 14 not to divide ourselves over doubtful things, or "disputable matters" as the NIV has it. Paul goes on to name some examples of disputable matters, such as which day of the week one regards as holy, and whether or not to eat meat. Paul says later in the chapter:

13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

I think the key to understanding this passage is to realize that Paul is telling us not to pass judgement on one another based on what we believe is clean or unclean. If one believes that drinking wine is improper behavior for a Christian, then to him, it is indeed improper. However, note that Paul says in verse 16 that we should not allow what we consider good to be spoken of as evil. I believe that wine, yes, alcoholic wine, is good. See also the end of the passage in verses 22 and 23:

22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

Folks, that is POWERFUL scripture, and good advice for us all. One might rightfully tell me that I am acting in defiance of Paul's words, and that I should keep my opinions (about consuming alcohol in this case) between me and God. And that is indeed what I do, as a rule. But I did feel compelled in this instance to answer those who so self-righteously condemn a man for innocently drinking alcoholic beverages on occasion. "Innocently," yes, because if he does not drink to drunkenness, he has not sinned. And don't worry whether or not you yourself can tell for sure if this man is drunk on wine or not, because it is not your calling, and it lies without your realm of authority to pass such judgement. God knows if a man is guilty of the sin of being drunk.


I believe that God gave man wine to gladden his heart. I get such an idea from Psalm 104 verse 15, where we see that God makes:

wine that gladdens the heart of man...

Further, a careful reading of Numbers chapter 6 shows us the requirements of those who took the Nazerite vow. They were to abstain for a specified period of time from all products of the grape, including grapes themselves and even raisins. Grape juice ('liquor of grapes," the King James has it) is also mentioned here, which shows us that God knows how to differentiate between grape juice and wine easily enough (I mention this because many believe that wine in the Bible is often grape juice, and not alcoholic wine at all. Perhaps this is the case, but God does show in Numbers 6 that He knows how to state the difference). After a specified period of abstaining from grape derivatives the Nazerite was allowed to again drink wine (verse 20). So a reasonable reading of this chapter would lead a reasonable man to understand that the wine mentioned in Numbers 6 is fermented, alcoholic wine, and drinking it is not sinful.

Look too, to Deuteronomy chapter 14, where we see this very curious scripture:

26"You may spend the money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever your heart desires; and there you shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household. (NASB) Note: The KJV also renders this "strong drink." The NIV says "wine or other fermented drink." Does this sound to you like God is prohibiting the use of wine and strong drink? It is also worth pointing out that this use of wine and strong drink cannot reasonably be construed as medicinal in this context.

Most of us are familiar with Paul's advice to Timothy to "Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses."(1 Timothy 5:23). Then Paul says of deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8 Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain.

Realize that this doesn't say that the deacon should be a teetotaller, only that he should not be given to "much" wine. We must realize that since Paul actually prescribed wine for Timothy's stomach and other infirmities, Paul cannot mean that one was not fit to be a deacon if he had any wine at all.

As for overseers or "bishops" as it is rendered in the King James, Paul tells them in 1 Timothy 3:3 that they should be: not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money (NASB). Some translations say "not given to wine," but the meaning remains the same when the original Greek is observed. What Paul is saying is that church leaders (overseers, bishops, ministers, etc.) should not be addicted to wine. Paul is not saying that they must completely abstain from wine, otherwise his advice to Timothy is contradictory--because Timothy was a church leader. Timothy wasn't drinking enough wine, and he was frequently getting sick (probably from unclean water which was common in that area).

Again, with all of this said, I do believe that the Holy Spirit will at times require different things from different folks. He may tell you not to drink alcohol, and God bless you for obeying His command to you. (Read Acts chapter 15 for an illustration of how the Holy Spirit might place individualized restrictions against certain folks based on their particular set of circumstances). But please do not point out what you believe to be sin in another man's life if you have no Biblical basis to fortify your position. You do yourself harm in God's eyes with such judgemental behavior; read again Romans 14:13 cited earlier...

We've looked at what the Proverbs have to say, and also at what the Apostle Paul has written, but what does our Lord Jesus Christ Himself say on the matter?

Does God believe that it is good to abstain from alcoholic wine? I think that He does believe that it is good to abstain, as The Word says in Luke chapter 1, verse 15:

15for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth.

The above verse is a reference to John the Baptist. The Word says this is a man who will be great in the sight of the Lord, and it further mentions (though certainly not as a prerequisite to being great in God’s eyes) that this man will be commanded never to take wine or other fermented drink.

However…

When Christ references John the Baptist later on in the book of Luke, we see Him in chapter 7 say the following:

33For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ 34The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and “sinners.”

…so it appears that Christ Himself tells us that he did drink wine. They even accused Him of being a drunkard!

Look also at Luke chapter 5, where we see Christ saying:

37And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. 38No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins. 39And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for he says, ‘The old is better.’ ”

So, it is very honorable and even “great in the sight of the Lord” to abstain from alcoholic drink. Does that mean that it is wrong for others to drink? Certainly not, as Christ Himself drank wine, and even mentioned the then and now well known fact that “old wine is better.”

So, what shall we do? I believe that those who have been personally convicted by the Holy Spirit to abstain from alcohol should obey that conviction. But let them realize that is an individualized restriction placed on them for reasons which may be known only to our Lord Himself. He placed such a restriction on John the Baptist, and we all know how great a man John the Baptist was. But the brother under such a conviction should realize that God does not count teetotalling among His commands to all men, and therefore he should be careful not to pass judgement on a man for doing what God has not forbidden him to do.

In Christ,

Dan

First Mate Calvin and the Captain..

The ship was sinking, and there was nothing that could be done to stop it. The captain called first mate Calvin to his side, and informed him of the coming tragedy. The captain said that some would certainly perish, though it grieved him that this was the case.

"Unfortunately, many will not make it into the life boats in time," the captain grimly told Calvin. "Some will stubbornly refuse to believe that the ship could be sinking and will therefore ignore the call to enter the life boats. Some will be so paralyzed with fear, they'll remain in their cabins. Nonetheless, go on and get the word out to all souls aboard."

"Which passengers shall I go to first?" Calvin hurriedly asked.

"Simply tell all who will to board the life boats. We have twenty-four life boats on deck. That is enough to save all souls aboard, but some will not be saved. You don't know who will be saved and who will not, so just let everyone aboard know about the life boats. Better some saved than none at all."

"Aye aye, captain!" first mate Calvin dutifully shouted.

Calvin left the captain's bridge and grabbing a bull horn on his way to the passenger's quarters he then began considering the dire circumstances of all the passengers and the crew. Calvin also began to mull over bits and pieces of the conversation he'd had with the captain.

"Hmmm," Calvin thought, "the captain says that he wants all on board to be saved, but then again he says that all won't be saved... he says some of them are stubborn and afraid and therefore they won't be saved... I wonder how the captain knows that? Well, no matter... he's the captain so I'm sure he knows a lot more than I know. I wouldn't save those stubborn ones either if it were entirely up to me, so I see the captain's point. And the scared ones will just get what's coming to them too. That just means more room for the rest of us..."

Calvin then walked the hallways and common areas of the ship, shouting:

"This ship is sinking! The captain says that some of you will be saved! Get into the life boats immediately so that those who will be saved can be saved!" Calvin felt a sense of authority that he'd never felt before as he shouted this message all over the ship.

But a woman with a very young child came to him and said: "My brother is on board somewhere and I cannot find him. You said that some of us would be saved. Will my brother be saved?"

"Only the captain can answer that," Calvin smugly informed her. "The captain has said that not all will be saved. I'm sure he knows which ones will be saved and which ones won't. He has a complete list of all souls on board, and I'm sure he has a list of the ones who will be saved."

"But I won't leave my brother behind. Can't he, too, be saved?" the woman desperately wondered aloud. "Where is this list?"

"You can't see the captain's list," he told her. "You, your child, and your brother may all be on that list. But then again, only some of you may be. Or possibly all of you will die. It's all up to the captain."

"Well, what if we go on and get into a life boat now? Will that mean that we're probably on the list?" the woman asked.

"No," Calvin said. "Your act of climbing into the life boat means nothing in and of itself. If you're not on the captain's list and he finds you in one of his life boats you'll be thrown out. There is nothing you can do to ensure that you're on that list--it is entirely up to the captain."

And so with that Calvin again raised the bull horn to his lips and continued shouting his warnings to all souls on board.

A middle aged man approached Calvin and asked: "Why are you telling everyone that only some of us will be saved? Shouldn't you just call everyone into the life boats? Isn't there enough room in the boats for everyone?"

"There is enough room for everyone, but the captain says that all won't be saved," Calvin said. "That's not my rule, that's his rule. I'm just the messenger."

But the man was not satisfied with Calvin's answer. "Do you mean to tell me that everyone on board could be saved, but that the captain has declared that only some will be saved? How do we know who will be saved and who will be lost? What can I do to ensure that I'm one who will be saved? And what about my wife, can I bring her onto the life boat with me?"

First mate Calvin paused a moment and pondered these questions. He did his best to remember the words that the captain had spoken to him, and made the best sense of those words that he could. "Only the captain knows who will be saved and who won't. It is not up to you or your wife whether either of you will be saved," Calvin said. "There is nothing either of you can do to affect the captain's decision--it is entirely up to him who will be saved and who will go down with the ship. So don't attempt to get into good graces with the captain now because unless you are on his list to be saved, you're going to be lost."

Continuing, Calvin then said: "But I have some good news! If you are on the captain's list to be saved, you cannot lose! So rejoice! He's a great and wonderful captain because he has picked a few of us for his good pleasure to put into the life boats. The rest of you will drown, as you well deserve to!"

"We deserve to drown?" an elderly woman shouted? "Is that what the captain said?"

"Well... yes," Calvin replied. "If you're not on the captain's list, you deserve to drown."

"And do you deserve to drown?" the woman asked Calvin.

"We all deserve to drown," Calvin said, because we're all on this ship and we're all bad people. Remember this is a casino ship, and all of us on board are gamblers. We all deserve to drown, but it is the captain's good pleasure that some of us be saved."

The woman then asked "What if we go now and beg the captain to put us on his list? Will he then do that, and so save us?"

"No," Calvin was certain. "If you were not on the captain's chosen list when you came on board, then you're not going to get on that list at all. You can't ask the captain to add you to his list because it is not up to you whether you are on that list or not. You're either on it, or you're not on it. If you asked him to put you on that list, that would mean that it is something which you did which got you onto the list. And that is not how it is. So don't waste the captain's time."

"This isn't making any sense" another woman said. "First you tell us that there is enough room in the life boats that we all could be saved. Then you say that the captain has wished that we would all be saved. Then you tell us that only some of us will be saved, and that the rest of us will perish. Then you say that it is not up to us whether or not we can be saved--you say it's entirely up to the captain no matter what we do or don't do. But you have already said that the captain would like us all to be saved. How can he wish that we all be saved and at the same time sentence some of us to drown?"

"Captain's orders," Calvin smugly replied. "That is just the way it is, and he's in charge of this ship. Deal with it."

An elderly man named George stepped forward and addressed the first mate: "Then why are you telling us these things? Assuming you are right--assuming you have not misunderstood the captain--why are you telling us these things? If the captain's list cannot be changed, why tell those of us who are not on the list that we are about to drown? Why cause such discord among the passengers? If what you say is true--if nothing can be done to affect the captain's decision as to who goes and who stays--why fret those who will drown? Why take their hope now? I see that one young man has already returned to his cabin to drown. He was about to board that life boat over there, but then he heard your words. I heard him say as he passed by me that he's sure that he can't possibly be on the captain's list. He has returned to his cabin to drown because of what you have said."

Calvin was contemplating a reply when a young woman yelled: "We want to speak to the captain ourselves. This cannot be the way of it!"

Just then a woman named Mary ran to join the crowd. "I have already spoken to the captain" she said. "I've just come from the captain's bridge and if I understand the captain correctly, it is up to each passenger whether or not they board the life boats. Room on the boats is plentiful, the captain says. He does not want any of us to die--but he says it's up to us whether or not we avail ourselves of the life boats."

"Not so fast!" Calvin scoffed. "That's not what the captain told me. And who are you anyway--some mere passenger? And you have dared to approach the captain to bother him at such a time as this?"

"The captain was very gracious to me, even loving," Mary said. And I did not get the impression that I was bothering him at all. I could feel just from being in his presence that he is very concerned for every one of us. 'Tell all who will be saved to enter into the life boats!' This is what he told me to say."

"Well I don't believe you," Calvin flatly stated. "The captain has a list and I'm sure of it. Some of you aren't on that list so you just deceive yourselves into thinking that you can ask the captain to put you on that list, even at this last minute, and he will. Ha! Go on and think such foolishness! You'll die anyway!"

Then the elderly man named George asked the first mate: "What if Mary is right? Wouldn't that be good news to you? What if any of us could ask to be put on the captain's list, and so find a place on the life boat? You seem as if you would not be happy if the captain had so arranged things."

"It doesn't matter whether I'm happy with that or not," Calvin retorted. "The captain will only save those whom he will."

George asked "What about the crew? What about you, first mate? Are you on the list? Do you plan on being in one of the life boats?"

"Certainly I do," Calvin said confidently. The captain would surely not allow me to be lost. I'm his messenger to all on board. He has confided in me, and I'm so very respectful of his authority. I believe this pleases him."

"Have you seen the captain's list?" George wanted to know.

"Well, not exactly," Calvin admitted. "But since I'm the one who the captain first told about the list, I'm certain that I'm on that list. Otherwise I'm sure he wouldn't have told me about it. And besides, I have very strong admiration for the captain and I especially revere his total authority and I know how much he likes that... so I'm sure I'm on that list."

"What did you do to get on the list?" George wondered.

"Nothing. It was just the captain's good pleasure that I be on that list! That's what's so great about it! But I'm beginning to suspect that you, sir, are not on the list and you're just jealous because you're not. That's why you keep badgering me with all this nonsense! It's not my fault you're not on the list. And it's too bad for you that you can't do anything to get on the list. Too bad indeed!" The first mate seemed quite happy with himself.

And so Calvin continued, going all about the ship as it slowly sank, shouting to everyone on board that if they were one of the lucky ones--one of those chosen by the captain--they could be saved. But no one--not even those who were already seated in the life boats--could understand how Calvin could so gleefully--even pridefully--tell everyone on board that only certain ones were designated by the captain to be saved. This caused a great deal of confusion among the already frightened passengers.

Then Mary turned from the crowd and announced: "I'm going into the passenger's quarters to tell everyone what the captain has told me--that they can be saved if they'll just come up and board the life boats."

"Knock yourself out," Calvin sneered. "The ones who are actually on the captain's list are already in the boats. There's no hope for the rest of these hapless souls. You're just wasting your time!"

But within a half hour, when the water was beginning to flood the ship's deck, Mary emerged from below, leading a dozen passengers who had believed there was room on the life boats for them too. These were soaking wet, humble, and afraid, but so very thankful that someone had shown them that they could still be saved. As they boarded the life boats, first mate Calvin strolled over and announced:

"These were obviously on the captain's list the whole while! Thank goodness the captain has chosen these also!"

"We thought sure we would all drown," a man named Paul said. "We had been told that it was not the captain's will for all to be saved. Earlier this day, I had stolen money from another man's cabin while he was having his lunch. When the ship's officers came around to question me about the theft, I lied and said I had nothing to do with it. But I knew that the captain suspected me. Therefore, when I was told that only those on the captain's list could be saved, I was certain that I would not be on that list. But this woman," he said, pointing to Mary, "assured me that the captain still had room for me--even me--in one of the life boats. And this made me very happy, but also very sad. I was happy that I might not die, but I was very sad about the crime I had committed. I wanted to tell the captain that I was guilty, and would pay back double for what I had done. I wanted to apologize to the man whose money I had taken. I wanted to make things right. And I still feel terrible to even be here with you fine folks, trying to save myself from drowning. But I'm so glad that there are enough boats! I praise the captain that he will not allow me to perish for this awful thing I've done."

"Are there any other souls below deck?" George asked Mary.

And Mary's eyes welled with tears. "I called out to one young man and I told him that there was still time for him to be saved. He said that he did not deserve to be saved, and therefore he was sure that he wasn't on the captain's list that the first mate had told everyone about. I told him to just come, and not to worry about any such list. I told him I had spoken to the captain and that anyone who was willing to come would be saved." She paused a moment, her tears now streaming down her cheeks. "But he wouldn't believe me. He's still down there."

Freewill and the Doctrine of Election

One of the most divisive issues in the church today is the freewill verses predestination debate. Calvinists hold to the predestination side of things (often referred to as the "doctrine of election") and Arminians (so called after renaissance theologian Jacobus Arminius) believe that we have a freewill choice in the matter of accepting or rejecting Christ. The Arminian believes that we must choose Christ of our own volition, or we cannot enter into Heaven. The Calvinist believes that we do not have freewill, and are merely predestined to Heaven or Hell, and that there is nothing we as humans can do to affect our final destinations.

Obviously, both sides cannot be right. We either have a freewill choice in the matter of our salvation, or we do not. I believe that we most certainly do, and I'll try to illustrate just why in this document. Let's look first in the book of Romans...

Romans 8:29-30 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

The Greek word for "called" in verse 30 is "kaleo," which in this context means essentially to name or bestow a title on something, as in "God 'called' us His sheep." This is not the invitation to salvation that goes out to all mankind, which is referenced in Matthew chapter 22, verse 14:

14For many are called, but few are chosen.

In the above instance, "called" is interpreted from the original Greek word "kletos," which means to "invite." Many are invited, few are chosen. Essentially, those chosen are the ones who respond to the invitation which God extends to all mankind. In view of Matthew 22:14 the Calvinist is hard pressed to explain how some of those being called end up not being chosen. Those who accept God's invitation become the chosen, or the elect. And God knows, in His infallible foreknowledge, who those elect will be.

At the very beginning of 1 Peter, the apostle plainly states that the elect to whom he is writing are elect according to the foreknowledge of God:

1 Peter 1:1-2a 1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father...

So again, we become elect when God's foreknowledge tells Him that we will respond favorably to His universal invitation (see again Matthew 22:14). Paul and Peter have affirmed this in their writings. Foreknowledge preceeds election. I have seen Calvinists such as John MacArthur try to redefine what foreknowledge means, but their reasoning is weak, and based on much presumption. Foreknowledge means what it means. Foreknowledge does not necessarily entail causing.

God foreknows, then He calls (kaleo) some of us His own. Which ones will He call His own? Those who receive Christ, of course! That's the way the scripture reads.

Is God unfair to those He does not choose to call His own? Of course not. God is not unfair to the "un-elect" because it is due to their own natures and actions that He doesn't choose them. But these might ask, as we see in Romans 9:19b:

Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

But Paul tells them in verse 20 that they are in no position to question God for making them as they were. You see, these have misused their freewill and now want to blame God for trusting them with it!

Please understand that the only way to make Godly sense of Romans 9:19-20 is to realize that Paul is rebuking those who would accuse God of intending that they fall into Hell. What this protester is essentially saying is that since God knew that some men would fail to obtain salvation, it should follow that those who go unsaved are only falling within the will of God. But it is not God's will that any should perish--the failure is the total responsibility of the individual.

To better explain the point I would offer this analogy: A Marine Corp drill sergeant tells the new recruits that some of them will fail to complete boot camp. What if those who ultimately did fail went to the drill sergeant and said: "We were just fulfilling your will that some of us would fail. You should not blame us." But of course the truth is that those who did fail had the same opportunity to succeed as everyone else. They just blew their chance, and they failed. It's not the drill sergeant's fault; it's entirely the fault of those who failed. Just because the drill sergeant knew that some would fail we cannot assume that he intended that any fail.

Paul then asks this very interesting question: 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Now this isn't saying that God spins one man off the potter's wheel and says: "This is an honorable vessel," then, of the next guy He says "Now here's a dung bucket, whaddaya think?" Rather, Romans 9:21 is saying that God knows (and the apostle Paul knows) that some of us will shipwreck our souls because we are autonomous beings--which is exactly what God desired to create. (That's why he called Adam and Eve "good" on the sixth day--even though He knew that they would fall into sin). God knew ahead of time that some of us would use our freewill to choose against Him, and therefore author our own destruction. He knew in advance that if He were to trust mankind with freewill (a necessity if our love toward Him was to be genuine) that some would be destroyed--but this was of their own choosing, and was a necessary byproduct of giving man freewill.

So the reprobate asks, upon realizing that he has become doomed because of his foolish unbelief, "Why did God trust me with this freewill if He knew I might misuse it and therefore die?" He might further wonder aloud "Since God knew that some of us would fail, why does He blame those of us who do fail? Who resists His will?" So Paul tells this inquisitor that such manner of questioning God's sovereignty is folly.

Does God intentionally create dishonorable vessels? Let's look to 2 Timothy 2:20-21 for our answer:

20But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
21If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

So we see that if a man purges himself of the negative qualities Paul mentions in the letter, then he shall be a vessel unto honor. Notice that it is the man's responsibility to purge himself. Freewill is strongly denoted here. God will of course guide our steps, but we must be willing to move our feet. If the reader has previously held to the notion that Romans 9:21 means that God intentionally makes dishonorable vessels, he should not, in full view of 2 Timothy 2:21 continue under such a delusion. We all have the God given ability to become vessels of honor. Understand that just because God knows that some of us will fail, that does not mean that He causes us to fail. There is big difference between knowing and causing.

It is helpful to realize that only freewill led, autonomous beings could truly honor and glorify God. If God made us as sock puppets (the Calvinist view, when you get right down to it), and then, as "glorified sock puppets," we turn--right on cue--and robotically glorify Him, what glory is that? True honor and glory and love toward God must come from somewhere outside Himself. Christ says in John 8:54:

54Jesus answered, "If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, 'He is our God'; (NASB)

So we see here that Christ's glory came to Him from the Father, the first member of the Trinity. We do not count Christ as less than God, so it is right to believe that God Himself does not consider self-glorification true glory.

It is true that God intentionally created man with the ability to fail or succeed. In such a design God receives true love and glory when we seek and find Him. The dishonorable vessel wonders why God created him at all, if indeed God knew in His foreknowledge that he would end up in Hell. But to have placated such men by not making them at all would be to deprive the rest of us the chance to be with God. God would like for us all to be saved, but it is our freewill that keeps some of us away from Him.

Now, as pertaining to that universal invitation, let's look at Romans chapter 1 for a moment...

Romans 1:20-21 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they (the reprobate) are without excuse: 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (or hardened, I think it's fair to say).

Notice that these verses indicate that those who had their hearts darkened actually knew God, but chose not to glorify Him. Since Paul labels these who did not glorify God as "without excuse" it is proper to say that they could have acknowledged God (otherwise Paul would not admonish them, rather he would pity them). So there falls the Total Depravity point of Calvinism, we should note; these could have glorified God.

When God chooses His elect, it is only because He is having mercy on us. He chooses to have mercy on those who He foreknows will accept that invitation that He speaks of in Matthew 22:14. And He chooses to harden those who He knows will reject His Son Jesus Christ. God knows the hearts of all the elect and all the reprobate. He knows the sheep, and He knows the goats. And when he has mercy on the sheep, it is mercy indeed because even these do not deserve eternal life. (For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God).

Regarding mercy and hardening...

God knows that the reprobate would never of his own volition receive Christ. And our Lord does not like lukewarmness. (See Revelation 3:15-16). God wants us to either accept and love Him, or otherwise turn completely from Him. We will then either be the recipients of mercy (if we sincerely seek God) or hardening (should we turn away from Him). This is our choice, and this decision has everything to do with whether God decides to have mercy on us or not.

Romans 9:18 says Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

This scripture doesn't indicate that God just arbitrarily, as in some great cosmic lottery, chooses a few to save at random. I think it is completely biblical to understand that this mercy for some and hardening for others is certainly based on something within the individual person's nature. God differentiates between individuals for some reason--even before they do good or evil, as it is written in Malachi, and quoted by Paul in Romans 9:13, where God said: Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

One possible characteristic in a person that is pleasing to God might be that person's response to God's creation--which is the undeniable evidence of His existence (see again Romans 1:20-21)... or the person's response to the ministering of the Holy Spirit. If God likes what He sees in His foreknowledge (remember?)--then He calls us His elect--because He knows that we will come to Jesus.

But is it even possible that an unsaved soul could act in such a way that God sees potential in them? The Calvinist would say no, but fortunately for us all the apostle Paul appears to differ: Romans 2:14-15a:

For when the Gentiles which have not the law do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness...

So it appears biblical to say that it is possible that some men, even before being saved, can respond properly--at least some of the time--to the laws which God has written on our hearts. Put another way, when we respond to and even cultivate a good conscience (notice that Paul even uses that very word "conscience" in the scripture shown above) we are moving in a Godly direction. And this is how, I would suggest, God chooses His elect. Using His foreknowledge, God saw a difference between Jacob and Esau. God knew what Esau would become, so God chose Jacob over Esau. God did not condemn Esau; Esau condemned himself. God did not predestinate Esau into Hell--Esau did this to himself. Further, God knew what Jacob would become, so God considered Jacob one of His elect.

Still speaking of Jacob and Esau, Romans 9:11 says: 11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

"What is the purpose of God according to election?" one might ask. Many Calvinists would say that this means that God caused Esau to fail and Jacob to succeed. The poor Arminian probably hasn't a clue about what to do with this verse. So what does it mean? It means just what it says: God's purpose according to election has nothing to do with working your way toward Him. Nor does it have anything to do with willing your way toward Him. Let's look quickly at Romans 9:16:

16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

God's purpose in election has nothing to do with will or works. A man might will himself toward communion with God, but that won't get him there. A man might do all sorts of good works, hoping that God will reward him for those works, but that won't get him elected either. (And do we not see many--even among our own church congregations--who attempt to will and work themselves into heaven?)

"Well," the Calvinist might ask, "if it is not according to a man's own will that he be saved, then how do you assert that man's freewill has anything to do with it?"

There is a difference between willing oneself into favor with God, and using our God given freewill to direct our lives in such a way that God finds favor in us. The condition of our heart is the key. We reflect this in how we respond to our fellow man. Think of the parable of the good Samaritan. Our Lord speaks favorably of this man's humanitarian action. Though the Samaritan was considered by the "well-churched" to be an undesirable, Christ shows us that He is pleased with such kindness of heart.

There are untold millions of church-going, professing Christians whose hearts will sadly remain--for all eternity--without Christ. Conversely, there are millions of professing atheists who will some day be called by God to believe on Christ--and these will come home, because God will have called them His own. God knows each of us--even before we do anything good or bad. He foreknows whom He will call His own.

So God shows mercy on whom He will and He hardens whom He will--based on His foreknowledge. Remember that those being hardened are not simply victims of God's "good pleasure" as many Calvinists would have it. These recipients of God's hardening have rejected Him; they have not acknowledged His existence unto glorification--even though they could have: Romans 1:20-21 is powerful and undeniable testimony that God expects us to respond positively toward Him, based only on our observation of His creation. Those who do not respond (and the undeniable implication is that they could and should respond) are again, in Paul's words, "without excuse."

Dan Newberry

Speaking in tongues...

I've been studying the matter of speaking in tongues. 1 Corinthians 14 really seems to cover the matter in depth. And there is some insight in Romans 8 as well...

Here is what I have concluded: The Holy Spirit will intervene for us when we do not know what to pray. Actually, the way it is written, Paul implies that we don't ever really know exactly what to pray for!

Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

That seems as though it could be a reference to the "prayer language," or to tongues. Paul does not forbid the speaking in tongues in the church--but he unquestionably discourages it.

18I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
19Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

So if someone is going to insist on speaking in tongues while in the church, there should be someone there to tell the congregation what the prayer was. The problem seems to arise when the interpreter indicates that the tongue spoken was a divine message from the Holy Spirit to the congregation. This does not appear to be what Paul would condone as the proper use of tongues.

Some churches believe that divine revelations come through certain of their members in the form of tongues. This does not seem to be supported anywhere in scripture either. When someone stands up during a chruch service and begins speaking in tongues, and another interprets that language as some prophetic message for the church, that does not appear to be the proper use of tongues, and is much more likely just someone uttering psycho-babble and another "interpreting" because that's what Paul says to do. But the thing is, they do not appear to have read and understood all of what Paul had to say about the matter.

Again, there seems to be no scriptural support for the notion that God speaks to us by the use of tongues. (If I'm wrong about that, please refer me to the proper place in scripture and I'll have a look at it). So, tongues are for the purpose of praying "when we do not know what to pray," and preferably when not attending services.

An aside: I think the reason that Jesus Himself never was reported to have spoken in tongues is that He would certainly not have ever been at a loss for words. But of course as mere humans, we do often have trouble with selecting the right words, or singular thing to pray for. A "prayer language" here might be useful. I have never prayed in tongues. But I'm not totally opposed to the idea...

I believe that the tongues spoken of in Acts at Pentecost were divinely inspired so that foreign peoples could hear the gospel in their own language. So in this case, the tongues were of men, not angels; they were foreign languages. It should be mentioned, however, that Paul does refer to "tongues of angels" in 1 Corinthians 13: 1Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

If it were ever expedient and necessary in this day and time, I'm sure the Spirit would do the same thing again, which is to give a person the ability to speak French (for instance) if a French person had never heard the gospel and was in dire need of hearing it right this instant. I think that speaking in tongues in the days of the apostles was much more useful and necessary then than now, because The Word has been communicated all over the world now, and is printed in every conceivable language. What we see in some charismatic churches is much like what must have been going in in the Corinthian church, and which obviously drew Paul's scorn. I'm speaking of an over-zealous wish for the gifts of the Spirit, at the expense of order, and often, it would seem, truth itself.

I do believe that speaking in tongues is a gift of the Spirit. However, it is unfortunate that it appears to be the most easily faked of the gifts. ;)

Dan

Is the Roman Catholic Church Mystery Babylon?

Are there any who have wisdom who do not believe that the Roman Catholic church is indeed Mystery Babylon, the whore depicted in Revelation 17?

http://www.chick.com/information/religions/catholicism/sevenhills.asp

The link above is quite interesting. I imagine this is another can of worms, but the similarities are obvious, AMAZING, and seemingly irrefutable. I researched both sides of this assertion, and those who would oppose this notion seem to have precious little to base their arguments on. It is almost as though they have a "powerful delusion" of sorts. I am not--I should point out--saying that members of the Catholic Church are apostate believers, to the contrary, Christ calls them out in Revelation 18:4-5

4And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
5For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.

So Christ acknowledges that He has people in the Roman Catholic Church, so all would not be doomed to destruction if they heeded His call. All food for thought, of course. But folks--if you'll read and understand the links posted--I think you may come to the same conclusion that I have. It is quite possible that a severely fallen Roman Catholic Church will unite with the Antichrist during the tribulation period.

Dan

Can you lose your salvation?

Following is a rather lengthy (but quite interesting if I may say so) email conversation I had with a brother in Christ who believes that one can lose his salvation, once being truly saved. I have put together the emails in the order in which they were sent. Some references made in the emails are to matters which were discussed by phone. I have deleted personal information such as phone numbers, last names, etc. in the interest of privacy. Some links in the emails may no longer be reachable. My friend Joseph's words will be in green, and mine will be in blue. Quotes from other writers will be in gray. Inserted notes (where necessary for clarity) will be in black. Please excuse the typos and misplaced indentions, as these emails are as originally sent. I thought some of you might find this discussion enlightening... :)

***************************************************

Summer, 2006...

Mr. Newberry, Hello! My name is Joseph. I am Todd's brother-in-law. I was talking to my sister and she mentioned you are looking for some Bible answers on "once saved-always saved". I have personally studied this subject extensively and I am emailing you to give you a website and some insight on what conclusion I came to. First of all, there is a book by a prominent Baptist Scholar, Dr. Charles Stanley called Eternal Security—Can You Be Sure?. It is in support
of the doctrine of once saved always saved. A rebuttle to this book is given at this web link; http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/can_a_christian_ever_be_lost. Both of these resources are a great place to compare the two doctrines. The christian courier website is a great place to search the Church of Christ point of view, which I am in agreement with (go to the home page and type in "eternal security" or "once-saved always saved" to search). Wayne Jackson, owner of this website, can sometimes be not so gentle in his approach to disproving the doctrine of once-saved always saved, but in my study, I have came to the same conclusion that he has-- the once-saved always saved doctrine is incorrect. Please do not hesitate to call me or email me with your questions (**********) again, the http://www.christiancourier.com/ website is a great place to search for answers. Seek and you will find! Joseph

Joseph, Thanks for contacting me. It was very considerate of Todd to forward my concerns on to you. I had mentioned to Todd that the minister at Crossroads COC had not, to my satisfaction, made the case for conditional salvation. I had also asked one of the deacons for
some literature, but they are all apparently very busy out there... no documentation has been forthcoming. I do think the folks at Crossroads are wonderful people, and have truly not found a congregation or ministerial staff as welcoming and nice as the folks there. Anyway, I checked some of the links you provided, and here is my take on the following matters. Feel free to respond to this email by inserting your own observations. It is true that some Bible verses can be interpreted in various ways. But Wayne Jackson says of 1 Corinthians 5:1 the following:

"A Biblical Case"
...there is unequivocal inspired testimony that a believer can lose his soul on account of personal sin. There was a brother in the Corinthian church who was living in fornication with his father’s wife (1 Corinthians 5:1). Paul, by inspiration, states that he had “judged” this wayward man (v. 3). Further, he admonished the saints at Corinth to “put away the wicked man from among
yourselves” (v. 13), which was a command to exercise church discipline. They were to expel the offender from their fellowship. The design of the discipline was to bring the wayward brother to repentance so that his “spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (v. 5; cf. 2 Thessalonians 3:6,14-15). The implication is quite plain—if the fornicator did not abandon his evil, he would not be saved in the day of the Lord. If it was impossible for him to be lost, the function/goal of the discipline was misstated.

By reading the verse as it is written, there is no specific mention that the fornicator must abandon his evil or he would not be saved. Jackson is taking some liberties here which do not appear to be there. I believe if it were Paul's intention that the man be made repentant
by being thrown to Satan, Paul would have said as much. I find it odd that Jackson would choose this verse to support the idea of conditional security, then hypothesize about Paul's unwritten intent. Truthfully, this verse is one I hadn't even considered yet which actually seems to very strongly support the notion of eternal security!

But anyway... we can discuss various interpretations of Bible verses and this is indeed instructive, but I would rather just discuss some practical considerations with regard to conditional security...

Okay... :)

I asked a conditional security advocate what it meant to "fall away," as is mentioned in Hebrews 6:4-6. He said that if one became sinful, that he had "fallen away." I asked how much sin one must commit to actually be considered to have fallen away, and he repled "any amount."
(Perhaps this is not your perspective, so I do not presume to put words in your mouth here). Anyway, I asked what happens to a believer if he "falls away," by committing a sin, then dies before repenting of it. I was told that this person would go to hell, since he died in unrepentant sin. I posed the question: "What if you're having a bad day on the highway, and you think spiteful thoughts about another motorist. Since thinking such thoughts is sinful, you are indeed in sin. But then you're struck by another car and you die on the spot. Are you going to hell? The person I asked replied, after a bit of hesitation, "Let's just say I wouldn't want to be there."
And so it would seem (from what I've been shown so far, but you may yet shed better light on the matter) that a person who has conditional salvation might actually die in sin (having not repented prior to dying) and then go to hell in spite of a lifetime of good works. Yes, it would be good to be in constant prayer and asking forgiveness, but many of our sins are sins which we don't even realize we've committed. What if we die in sin?

To me, it is obvious that none of us can live a sin free life, and none can always be on top of one's own sins well enough to always be "prayed up," so to speak. I mentioned Hebrews 6 earlier (phone conversation)... In the eternal security document from Henry Ironside (I think Todd may have forwarded this link to you, but if he didn't I'll be glad to send it) Ironside points out that if the person who believes his salvation is conditional actually does fall away, the Hebrew writer (some believe it was Paul, some don't) says that it is impossible to be brought back, for such would be like crucifying Christ afresh. So if we have truly "fallen away" when we become sinful, are we then toast? Such would appear to be the case, if we're to understand Hebrews as it is written.
In my own studies and observations of Bible scholars, I have noticed that when a verse says something that disagrees with the preconceptions of the scholar, the scholar will typically set up several hoops which must be jumped through, and successive conclusions which must be agreed upon in order to twist the words into a new meaning. Jackson correctly chastises Stanley for "taking several chapters" as he "struggles" with the idea that if a believer stops believing does he then lose his salvation(?)-- But Jackson himself unleashes an avalanch of verbosity here...
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/does_1_cor_315_support_the_doctrine_of_eternal_security as it is his turn to struggle with 1 Cor 3:15 :) ...

Anyway, I did try to phone you this evening but got no answer, and didn't leave a message. (Don't you just hate folks who do that? :P ) ) ... I've got to go help out at our annual Lion's Club carnival now, but should return home by about 10:30 PM and can talk then if you like, or
you can just email me back. My phone is ***********...
Thanks for your time and consideration,
Dan Newberry
----------------------------------------------------------------
HA Ironside sermon link, sent in a seperate email to Joseph: http://bob.vandyke.net/saved.htm



dan,
just skimming through that website (not the HA Ironside link, but another link we were discussing) , i came across this sentence: HOW DO WE KNOW THESE BLESSINGS CANNOT BE LOST? 1. The blessings of salvation cannot be lost because of the nature of salvation: (1) Salvation is eternal...
I agree that salvation is eternal...but i think they are not looking at it correctly. think of it this way, say you had a set of keys that are going to exist forever. however you lost those keys...the keys are still forever, you just dont possess them anymore. therefore, the keys are the ones that are eternal, not your possession of them. just a thought....let me know what you think!

-------------- Original message -------------- From: "daniel a newberry" <dannewberry@earthlink.net>
I understand what you're saying with the key analogy. But by definition, salvation means "saved," and saved means just that--you're not lost. I believe that a person who does not have his salvation at the end of his life can be said to have never been truly saved in the first
place. Again, simply because of the definition of the word. As I put it in my previous email to you: I am still convinced that a person who "gives up his salvation" was never saved in the first place. God, in His foreknowledge, knew this person would head deliberately back into unrepentant sin, so in God's own opinion, this person was never truly saved---simply by the
definition of the word "saved" which means just that; "not lost." As humans, we can suspect and surmise that this person or that person is "saved," but God knows already whether or not that person will go to Heaven or Hell. If we call that person saved for only a season, and then we call him lost becasue he has an adulterous affair--no true change in this person's eternal status has really occurred just because of what we, as humans, have to say about it. The man is either still
saved, or he is not--and truthfully, it may be impossible for us (as humans) to really tell which. This adulterer whom we had always believed was saved may have been (in God's everlasting opinion) never saved. On the other hand, if his heart is truly still with God and he
has simply had a weak moment of humanity (as David did when he took Bathsheba and then subsequently worked to kill her husband) then he, like David, is still saved. In this latter case, God knows that the sinner will be repentant, and not let go of his salvation. I believe it is very possible for folks to walk for a season deep in sin, as David did--and still be saved all the while--and even bare a small amount of fruit. :) This because God knew David's heart. I have a brother-in-law who only recently got out of prison for breaking and entering, and burglary. He is a drug addict, and we pray he will recover. But even during his time in prison, he ministered to other prisoners about God's word--and he'll be the first to tell you that he is a weak sinner, and constantly repenting. I believe someone like him can make it to Heaven, whereas a cold, judging minister who only professes Christ--but does not truly have Him--will end up in Hell. The very second God looks at me or you, and says "This one will be with me in Heaven," then we are from that very second eternally SAVED. :) And If God says otherwise of us, we are not saved and never were. Think of the absurdity of it: God says this week "This man will be with me in
Heaven." And next week he says, "Well scratch that, he's back on the Hell side of the board." (Not trying to sound facetious, but it really is that simple, I believe). So our salvation cannot be lost after it is once proclaimed by God. I will grant you that someone can miss out
on salvation by never picking it up to begin with, but once salvation is actually gained, it cannot be lost. If you have time to mull the above paragraph over, and respond to it that would be great, as it will help me understand your own perspective better. Not to mention the fact that if you find a way to effectively dispute it, you'll get my vote for wordsmith of the century. :D Please be well, and please write back. I do enjoy, very much, this correspondence with you. Yours in Christ, Dan
-------------------------------------------------------------

dan, hope you are well! i have been busy, but i am doing well. i am looking for a nice lazy, relaxing weekend. In your writing below, I agree with the fact someone is not truly saved until he or she enters heaven. For instance, I believe that I am in a saved state, meaning if I die, I will go to heaven, but on the other hand, I am not truly saved yet, because I have not died and gone to heaven. So when the Bible says someone has been saved and they are referring to the someone who is still alive, I believe they are referring to someone being in a current saved state or condition. one cannot be truly saved from Hell fire until he or she comes to the crossroads of
death. another way to look at it, an atheist is lost, i.e. in a lost state. he is not truly lost until he dies. he has time, while he is alive, to repent. so while being lost state, he is not truly lost yet. once he dies, he will truly be lost because he has no opportunity to repent. You stated below that once God decided "this one will be with me in Heaven" that very second we are truly saved. But that suggests that God judges us while we are alive. the Bible says "it is appointed man once to die, then after this the judgement". Therefore, God judges us after we die, not while we are still alive. I dont think God is moving us back and forth from lost to saved during our life journey.
instead, may i suggest that he waits until the end of our lives to make a judgement on whether he says "this man will be with me in heaven" or "this man is on the Hell side of the board". The notion that God moves us back and forth from heaven to hell suggests that God is constantly judging us, but i dont think that is happening. I really appreciate the thought provoking emails you send me. you have been a true blessing for me. i hope to give you a call this weekend
to chat.-------------- Original message -------------- From: "daniel a newberry" <dannewberry@earthlink.net>

-------------- Original message -------------- From: "daniel a newberry" <dannewberry@earthlink.net>
I think I've made myself a bit unclear, and I accept responsibility for that. I have not said that God judges us when He, in His foreknowledge sees where we will be. I'm simply saying that He already knows where we will end up. And if He knows this very second that you and I will be with Him in Heaven, then we are as good as there. And believe me, He knows. :) On the matter of the "saved state..." It is my opinion that God would never, since He has foreknowledge, consider any of us to be in a "saved state." Again, He knows right now whether we are truly saved or truly lost. He also knows the very second that we will die. I'm sure you will agree with that. I know that you are one who loves God and would not deliberately depart from His permissive will, so I don't fear for you at all. But by the "saved state" logic--and I hope you'll forgive me--a prostitute could be said to be in a "celibate state" on her day off. Again, I say we are either saved, truly, or we are truly not saved. Being truly saved only happens once. If a man claims to have been saved, and lost, and then saved again, the only time he was truly saved was the last time; the final time before death. We have been having a discussion on this matter on an internet forum I belong to (it's a hunting and shooting forum, with a Christian category). What has become evident to me is that the folks who believe you can lose your salvation view their relationship with God as a "partnership," where each partner has individual responsibilities in order for the partnership to flourish. This way of believing holds that either partner--either God or you yourself--can dissolve the partnership at any time based on some specific action, or series of actions. Coming from the eternal security perspective, I view it this way: Becoming truly saved puts you into God's hand. It is a lot more than some mutual partnership. It is a "new birth," and you can no more revoke your second birth than you can the first one. You see, when you accept the invitation, you have become a living, breathing, part of the body of Christ. You sense this--you feel it--in the depths of your soul. When you commit yourself to Him, you have become His. You don't even have the freewill to leave any longer. If you feel like you can
still leave His body, I pray that you will have revelation of the Holy Spirit, and so understand that as a saved Christian you have given yourself to Christ when you first trusted in Him and asked to be in Him, and that He be in you. You are no longer your own, though you once
were, now you are not. On the issue of lacking the freewill to leave Christ, while I'm convinced that this is the case (once truly saved) I do not believe that anyone who has a tender heart toward God would ever--even if he did have the freewill after entering the body of Christ--turn around and ask to be excused. It simply would not happen, so the matter is not really worth expounding on further. But we can certainly "fall away" from our fellowship, and lose (in this life) what God wants for us and expects of us. Hebrews is very stern about the matter. But such scripture is where much of the confusion comes from with regard to the permanence of our salvation. (And confusion also comes from a misunderstanding of what the kingdom of Heaven actually is)... But back on point. Aside from losing our own benefits in the abundant life, we also set a bad example to the yet unsaved when we act in sinful ways. But again, the phrase "fall away" cannot refer to losing one's very salvation because if it did, it would make mockery of much of what Christ said in the gospels. Christ even prays for each of us in John chapter 17. In verse 24, his prayer to the Father is that we be with Him. John chapter 17 really speaks
volumes to me. That is the key chapter in all of the gospels, in my opinion, which shows us who Christ really is, and what He really wants. On another matter, I have been considering the message of the parable of the workers in the vineyard, in Matthew chapter 20. The workers who had worked all day long were upset because they were paid the same wages as the ones who only came and worked a little, in the eleventh hour. Even though the early workers agreed to work all day for a denarius, they did not like the fact that those who worked much less than they did were given the same pay. My understanding of this parable is that many will be saved in the last hour, and will gain the same inheritance as those who have worked all along. But many of those who have worked all along will feel as though they deserve more, and perhaps will even feel that their gift has been cheapened by the fact that God gives the same to the eleventh hour workers. It is my belief that God views those who think that their reward should be increased in accordance with the amount of work done as prideful; even self-righteous. Then He says "So the last will be first, and the first will be last." Take care, and be well... and enjoy your weekend. :) Dan

(I sent Joseph another email before his response to the one above, it follows)...

-------------- Original message -------------- From: "daniel a newberry" <dannewberry@earthlink.net>
Joseph, I reviewed my last email response to you and I think it sounded a bit less than cordial. I want to apologize for that. Sometimes emails don't really carry the true emotion of the message, and it can be easy to mistake the writer's disposition. I hope I did not come off as rude, and if I did I apologize for that. I have been sharing our conversations with Todd as well--which I mentioned earlier--and I hope that is okay with you. I hope your weekend is going well, and yes, maybe we can speak by phone sometime this weekend. As mentioned, I have been discussing this matter of eternal versus conditional salvation with some folks at an internet forum, and it has been a spirited debate, to say the least. :) It remains my opinion that the verses which on the surface appear to support conditional salvation are outnumbered 20 to 1 by verses which
indicate we are secure. Perhaps you see it the other way, 20 to 1 in favor of conditional salvation... I don't know. But most of the conditional security believers will readily admit that the preponderance of verses do tilt in favor of eternal security. In my opinion, the verses which indicate something contrary to the majority are those which should be interpreted in the light of the majority. Another thought is that God doesn't really mind either point of view, so long as His people love Him and do not pervert His Word. We might discuss that perspective sometime. I think that both philosophies have a perverted extreme, but meet fairly closely in the middle when you really set down and compare notes. What do you think? Anyway, I did feel inspired of the Holy Spirit to write a response to a conditional salvation believer at the forum I mention. Here is part of that response: I know these things:

I was given to Christ by His Father. Christ prayed (John 17) for me, that I be with Him in Heaven. He has said that no man will snatch me out of His hand, and I believe Him.
I am a man. And once I am committed to Christ's hand, He Himself will not allow me to be wrested from it. Paul put it like: Romans 8:38-39 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,[a] neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39neither
height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
I ask you, what then can take me from God's hand?
"I myself," the conditional salvation believers will say.
But I am a man too. That logic defies Christ's own words, that no man can snatch me from His hand. And even if I could snatch myself from His hand, who would really be getting the credit or blame for that? Would I do it, totally untempted by Satan? No. So even if I could snatch myself away from God of my own freewill, Satan would be the true snatcher.
And so it should be totally clear that we are entirely safe in Christ--yes, even from ourselves. Like a foolish little child that ran into the woods and became lost, and in danger of death, I'm found by my Father. He has me now. And even if I say:
"Daddy, I want you to let go of me so I can run out and play in the deep woods once again!" My loving Father will say, "No, my child, you are safe here with me."
"But I like playing in the woods Daddy, and I think you're being mean not to let me go. You're a mean daddy and I don't love you anymore and I want you to let me go right this instant!"
Would you let your own child back into the woods? No, you would not, because you are charged with protecting your child. Do you love your child more than God loves you? Are you God's child?

He will never let you go. :)

Be well, you and yours, and go in Christ...
Dan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hey dan! no need for apologies! it was just fine. i am not very sensitive when it comes to that stuff. we are both seeking, and i understand the need for frankness, as i have been frank also. i know that sometimes both of us may come across a lil abrasive, but to me, that is just fine. i know where you heart is. i am going to try to think on it some more and reply later today. hope you have a great Lord's day!

(Joseph writes back later)...

...below you say "And so, if the conditional salvationist must poke and prod a person to obey God, what good is that? Obeyance comes from love. Christ says "if you love me you will keep my commands." So the person who truly loves Him will, of that love, keep His commands. It doesn't have to be inspired by fear of Hell. In fact, genuine love cannot be inspired by fear of Hell." i think love can be inspired by fear of Hell. God did say "if you love me, keep my commandments." I believe this is true also, "if you keep my commandments, this means you love me." God loves obedience (1 Samuel 15;22). obedience is how we show God our love, even if inspired by fear of Hell. Why does the Bible even talk about Hell fire if it is not to inspire one to obedience? Look at Simon the Sorcerer in Acts 8. In Verse 13, the Bible says Simon became a Christian "Simon himself believed, and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip." but as we keep reading, Simon took his eyes of God and got a sharp rebuke from Peter, "your money perish with you because you thought that the gift of God could be purchased with oney....repent from your wickedness and pray God the thought of your heart may be forgiven you." (bold my
emphasis) Peter threatens hell fire...why? in order to inspire obedience and repentence. also, notice Simon, a baptized believer was in danger of perishing....conditional salvation, he must repent! i bet simon was scared to death.

i use the example of my parents on Sunday morning. i loved my mom, but she would come in my room on Sunday morning and tell me to get ready for church, but even though i loved my mom, i would just lay there sleeping. but when dad said only once "boy get up" i knew i had to get up right then and there or face punishment. Even today, when i read passages about hell fire, i get scared and it makes me watch my step to make sure i follow God. I believe that this God's intent finally, for tonight, i will talk about one other point.... you said below that the Book of Life is a finished book....i believe it is not!!!!! i am unaware of any verse that alludes to it being finished. on the contrary, if you look in the first 3 chapters of revelation, God is addressing different churches on their status. remember, churches are made up of Christians. in chapter 3 verse 1, he says the church at Sardis is dead. in verse 3, he commands them to remember, hold fast (not an option), and repent. in verse 5 he says "he who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life" (bold my emphasis) 2 things to
consider....1)since a name can be blotted out, it shows that the book of life is open for changes and not a finished work and 2) only saved people are written in the Book of Life. therefore, you can easily concl ude that a saved person can become unsaved. that is all i have for tonight...wow, its almost 12! i hope my stuff above helps. take it easy and keep studying. thanks again dan. i
hope all is well with you -------------- Original message -------------- From: "daniel a newberry" <dannewberry@earthlink.net>

------------- Original message -------------- From: "daniel a newberry" <dannewberry@earthlink.net>
Joseph, thank you for the response. Before I continue I want to be sure to emphasize that this discussion is not an attempt to change your perspective, but simply to better reveal to you mine. 1 John 4:18 says... 18There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.However, I do like your analogy about the difference between how you respond to your mom, and then your dad when you were told to get out of bed. :) Of course your dad would have simply given you punishment commensurate with disobeying him, but your dad would not have disowned you--and certainly would not have taken your life from you--for such an offense. And God will certainly admonish and punish us in this earthly realm. We cannot even be a part to the kingdom of God (kingdom of Heaven) if we are living in sin. But I don't believe He will forsake one of His own, who has already become a part of the body of Christ. In 1 John 5:13 it is written: 13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal
life. :) So this verse doesn't support the idea that we do not receive true eternal life until we die. There are other such verses throughout the Bible which speak in the present tense of our salvation. Ones which do not have easily been understood to be addressing congregations or groups wherein there would certainly have been those who fit the description Christ gives us in Luke 8:13; the owners of the stony hearts, where the seed did not take firm root. Simon, in the Acts scripture you mention, was obviously one of these guys.

Compare Luke 8:13 to Acts 8:13. :) Same chapter and verse, same author. And I believe, speaking of the same kind of character. God revealed this curiosity to me the other day. God would never consider such a person truly saved. If we view "fear" as "respect" for God, then I agree there. But I don't agree that once we are saved that we still need to fear Hell. I
believe you told me once in a phone conversation that you wondered if you had died in your college years whether you would have gone to Heaven or not. And you said that later as you prayed and understood, you came to the conclusion that you would have gone to Heaven, even
though you were not living as God would have willed. I think that is exactly right. He never left you, because you are one of His sheep, and were only wayward for a short while. He knew that you would respond to His Spirit and come gladly back into the fold, which is fellowship with Him.
On the matter of Bible verses that are hard to explain, I think in many cases they simply mean what they mean. I believe God's foreknowledge is the reason that He knows who will be with Him and who will not. But He says: "My sheep hear my voice." So if we are indeed one of His
sheep (as I believe you and I both are) then we hear His voice. If we disobey His word after we have become truly born again, there are consequences, but never death. In Christ, we have escaped death. I believe we are blotted out of the "book of the living" as the actual interpretation goes, by dying without Christ. He gives us all an
equal chance, and if we die without Him our names are blotted from that book. The Lamb's Book is a different book (in my view and understanding), or it could simply be viewed as the names of those who were given to Christ by the Father. Christ prays for us in John 17,
so He knew then who we all were. :) If we can fall away from Christ after the Father gave us to Him, and after Christ has then prayed that we not be lost (John 17:24), then Christ's own prayer has been in vain. So in the Revelation verse (3:5) "he who overcomes" is in my view a
metaphor for those of us who accept Christ. That is how we overcome. And what does it say? It says that we will not be blotted out. I believe all of our names have been written in the book of the living, both saved and unsaved, and are only blotted out when we fail to accept Christ before death. He knows right now who we all are, but like in the dog analogy I gave you, that doesn't mean that He is controlling our choices.
This is my perspective, of course, and again, not intended to cause you to change yours. I am coming more and more of the opinion that God does not mind that we view salvation in different ways. And Paul says in Romans 14 that we should accept those whose "faith is weak." There
are folks of weak and strong faith on both sides of this eternal security issue. I know your faith is strong. But Romans 14 tells me that we should essentially not divide the church over matters that are disputable. And if ever there was a disputable matter, this one qualifies! :D
So again, it is with Romans 14 firmly in mind that I continue our discussion.
I hope all is well with you and yours,
Dan
daniel a newberrydannewberry@earthlink.netEarthLink Revolves Around You.


hey dan, just read your email and you make some great points, and i thank you. just a quick reply: you write: This is my perspective, of course, and again, not intended to cause you to change yours. I am coming more and more of the opinion that God does not mind that we view salvation in different ways. And Paul says in Romans 14 that we should accept those whose "faith is weak." There are folks of weak and strong faith on both sides of this eternal security issue. I know your faith is strong. But Romans 14 tells me that we should essentially not divide the church over matters that are disputable. And if ever there was a disputable matter, this one qualifies!
:D So again, it is with Romans 14 firmly in mind that I continue our discussion.
this is how i also view our discussion also. thanks for pointing this out. i have learned a lot from our discussions....how could God not be glorified?!!! i am so thankful that you are studying with me and vice versa. have a great day and i will try to email in length again soon. -
(from Joseph, next email)...
...you say being truly saved happens only once, but at what point does God say we are truly saved? God knows whether we are going to be with him in heaven or not before we are even born, therefore, would it not be safe to say all Christians were never lost? God could say "i
know joseph and dan are going to be in heaven with me before they are even born, therefore, they are at this point truly saved." We could be truly saved before we were ever lost. This is a predestination point of view. if you ever get a chance to read John Calvin's stuff, this a theory he came up with. The way I read it, our relationship with Christ is a mutual relationship. God has always had this characteristic. If you look back at the covenants God made with Israel, its always "i will bless you if you continue to obey me" kind of deal. this same Godly requirement/characteristic is revealed in Col. 1:21-23.... "...yet now hath he (God) reconciled in the body of his (Christ's) flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unproveable
in his (God's) sight: If you continue in the faith grounded and settled, and not be moved away from the hope of the gospel" (Bold is my emphasis.) to enjoy God's reconcilement, we have to "continue in the faith". i think this is very clear. there is no solid Biblical passages that i know of to support that God utilizes his foreknowledge to give us eternal sercurity. Certainly God has the capability to do this, but I dont think he does it. Thanks again for your time in emailing me and your study. get back to me when you get a chance. hope it is cooler weather there than here.
do you golf?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph, hope you're doing well...
I have never taken up golfing, but would probably enjoy it. I do like long range rifle shooting (which is a lot like golf when you think about it, and at least as frustrating I'm sure... :) And my other earthly love is motorcycle riding, which I like to do when the weather is good. It was really hot here today as well. That time of year I guess. :) It is true that God asked the Old Testament subjects to obey him. This was the dispensation of law. I believe that God did this to prove to
mankind that we simply cannot obey. If we could, Christ would never have had to die for our sins, as we would not have ever committed any.
Under the dispensation of Grace, we have Christ as our advocate, and He came for us just like we are--and only asked that we believe. And think about Israel. Even though Israel is in disgusting disobedience to God, is He still blessing them is not not? I say that He is,
even though they disobey. On the matter of predestination (Calvinism)... Remember the analogy of the dogs I talked about. If you were able to have all of the dogs you ever had in your whole life, alive at the same time and in the field... and you would go to the fence and call each dog... you would know which dogs will come right away, and which ones will not come. You would also know that the rabbit beagle would come running to you when he heard your voice, but when a rabbit crosses its path, you know that beagle will be off after that rabbit. But you also know that after he loses the rabbit, he'll be back. Later than the other dogs, and with briars in his nose... but he's back. :) God knows us this way too. He isn't robbing us of our freewill, anymore than the dog owner is robbing those dogs of their freewill--God (like the dog owner) just knows his subjects, and He knows what they'll do. Failing to understand this is where the Calvinists go out in left field and misconstrue predestination to mean that we have no choice in the matter of our salvation. Paul actually says in Romans 8:29 that God did predestinate us: 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. So, simply and soley by God's foreknowledge, He is in effect predestinating us, which is what Paul is saying here. But God isn't choosing for us. Mega-huge difference there that Calvinists need to get their minds
around... God gave us to Christ, and in John 17:24 we see Christ praying that we will be with Him. I think that God will grant that prayer. :) By "us" I mean those of us who become born again, as Christ says we must do. So I do think that God knows from our very birth whether we'll ultimately be His or not. The Lamb's Book of Life is written, it is a
finished work. Of course, we have to come to Him, but He knows that we'll do that of our own freewill. I don't believe that God would call us truly saved until we--as He knows we will do--accept His Son. It is something we must do, but until we do it we haven't become born
again. Christ did not call his work finished until it was done, though he of course knew that it would be done. Once we are born again, we are truly His and He will not put us down. Not only that, but He is able to "keep us from falling" after the point when we become saved.
Jude 1:24-25 says 4To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy— 25 to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and
forevermore! Amen. So, God Himself, through the Holy Spirit, will minister to us and keep born again Christians from falling. The rub comes when someone who is not a true Christian goes off into left field and never comes back. That person may have professed faith, but never truly had it--and never truly loved Christ. You and I would agree that such a person will not be with us in Heaven. The only difference between me and you here is that I would say this person was never saved, and you would say (if I may speak for you) that his person might have been saved at one time. Reading 1 John 2:19 it says: 19They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us. So the person who turned away and never came back--according to John--"did not really belong to us." I agree that we must continue in the faith if we are to share eternity with our Lord. No argument there. But I would simply say that
someone who demonstrates that he isn't continuing in the faith falls into the category described in 1 John 2:19. "...their going showed that none of them belonged to us." I think the real issue with conditional salvation believers (if I may respectfully say this) is that they would warn someone who is falling away from true belief that he or she is in danger of Hell. That part is true enough. But the conditional salvation believer would then go on to persuade that person to do what "has to be done" so that he or she can once again head back toward Heaven. In other words, if you simply obey God, you will be back on the path to Heaven. But you can't force love, and love for God is the root of true salvation, and cheerful obeyance. If your wife truly did not love you--but she merely did all of the things that a good wife ought to do, and went through the physical motions of things designed to make it look as if she loves you. would you be happy? No, I don't think you would. You would know something wasn't right. There would be something missing. It wouldn't be the same. And so, if the conditional salvationist must poke and prod a person to obey God, what good is that? Obeyance comes from love. Christ says
"if you love me you will keep my commands." So the person who truly loves Him will, of that love, keep His commands. It doesn't have to be inspired by fear of Hell. In fact, genuine love cannot be inspired by fear of Hell. Christ did not say "If you keep my commands you will love me." ;) If we are motivated to serve God through fear instead of love, our fear is well founded. If we love Him, we'll keep His commands. He tells us that. Loving Him causes us to keep His commands, to the best of our ability. But keeping all of His commands perfectly (even if we could) would never cause us to love Him. We can't keep all of those commands all of the time, and He knows that. But He is able to keep us from falling from His hand. He has saved us, even from ourselves. And all we must do is truly love Him. The "obey" part comes from the love, and cannot be forced, or else it is worthless. So I say, when the suspected tare is busy showing us that it is probably a tare, we should not try talking it into being a stalk of wheat. Truly, it can't. A tare will never truly obey, because it will never truly love. But a stalk of wheat will love, and then, out from that love, to the best of its ability, obey.
:) Dan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next email from me (Dan) to Joseph...
-------------- Original message -------------- From: "daniel a newberry" <dannewberry@earthlink.net>
Joseph, Hope you and yours are doing well. We went to the lake down at Lake Norman, NC over the weekend. I just got back. Had a fun time. :) I found an interesting verse in 1 Corinthians the other day. It's chapter 11, verse 32: 32When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world. I know that Bob has indicated to me that when Paul talks about us being judged by the Lord, that we are being essentially condemned, and he (Bob) interprets this to mean that we are losing salvation. I don't think this take squares with 1 Corinthians 11:32, however. To me, the verse indicates that Christians are indeed judged by the Lord, but this judging is not to condemn us with the world but simply to correct our bad behavior. In your opinion, at what point does the Lord stop judging us in a chastening, constructive way (?)... and at what point does He consider a previously saved person to be condemned again, and no longer worthy of the chastening described in 1 Corinthians 11:32? Do you think He would give a Christian a few days, a few weeks, or even a few years? God sent Nathan to David to give David inspiration to repent. David did repent, which put him back in good standing with God. Do you think that God would do the same for you or me--at some point before our appointed time to die--if He knew that we would repent? Of course David
was chastened very sternly, as God took his son whom he had conceived with Uriah's wife. (2 Samuel 12). For my part, I don't think God would allow us to die without making a way for us to repent, if indeed He knew that we would repent. On another matter... Moving to the book of Hebrews... : ) The strong verses in Hebrews (especially chapter 6:4-6) indicate to me someone who has blasphemed the Holy Spirit (which I believe means literally insulting the Holy Spirit when He decides that the time has come to extend to a person The Invitation to come to Christ). This is a man who has really never accepted Christ, even though the Holy Spirit has provided all means for him to do so. This man has tasted the Word, but not eaten it. He has been enlightened, but does not himself shine. He has shared in the Holy Spirit (which I believe means he has witnessed the power of the Holy Spirit), but is not indwelled by it... I think that such language in Hebrews was considered necessary, since many of these Jewish folks to whom the letter was written were almost certainly not yet fully committed to Christ. This is my take on
it anyway. What are your thoughts on these matters? Dan daniel a newberrydannewberry@earthlink.netEarthLink Revolves Around You. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mannnn, must be nice to be at lake norman! i am jealous!!! hey, if you ever want to come to ********* to hang out, you are welcome to stay at me casa! i dont know if you are ever up this way, but just wanted to extend the invitation. ********* is a cool place. Me and the lil lady can show you around town if you never have been. I agree with you on I Corinthians 11:32. i am also in disagreement with bob. The way it reads to me is that God is simply, as you put it,
correcting our bad behavior. you wrote: God sent Nathan to David to give David inspiration to repent. David did repent, which put him back in good standing with God. Do you think that God would do the same for you or me--at some point before our appointed time to die--if
He knew that we would repent? Of course David was chastened very sternly, as God took his son whom he had conceived with Uriah's wife. (2 Samuel 12). I do believe God would do the same for you or I. Hopefully you or I wouldn't be hard headed and listen and the Good Lord wouldn't have to spank us too bad! you wrote: In your opinion, at what point does the Lord stop judging us in a chastening, constructive way (?)... and at what point does He consider a
previously saved person to be condemned again, and no longer worthy of the chastening described in 1 Corinthians 11:32? Do you think He would give a Christian a few days, a few weeks, or even a few years? my answer to this is that i dont know when God considers a condemned person saved. i dont think the Bible defines a line for us to cross.
It could be different for each individual. Again i refer to Sampson..the verse reads, am i am paraphrasing "Sampson did not know the Lord had left him." Therefore, i believe that we will not know when we have crossed over the line. I could very well be way off on this, but
this is my current understanding. Hope all is well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**************************************************************************************************************************
...and that is the end of my and Joseph's email conversation, though we did talk again on the phone. I told him that I don't believe that God leaving Samson in that particular case meant that God had condemned Samson to Hell--only that Samson was no longer being helped by God--a situation we see time and time again with the stubborn Israelites. And born again Christians today can find ourselves out of the company and favor of God, and we will fail (as did Samson) when this happens. Fail, yes. Fall into Hell? I really think not. God loves us much, much more than that. :)

Dan Newberry